Newest Health Care Poll

[MaggieMae]

Not ok with it now, and wont be ok with it when it costs me even more to carry them under obamacare.

It is financialy unsustainable now, and obamacare will make it worse.....for the ones who are paying.

How do you know it's going to cost you more? The full program won't even be implemented until 2014.

How do you know it is not going to cost more?

It is simple business. Increase the demand for goods and services and don't raise the cost to cover said goods and service's...you go bankrupt.
So why have TVs, computers, and other electronics all fallen in price dramatically, but it still costs the same to produce and sell them? COMPETITION!!!

Increase the amount of good and services that are given away for free, the money to pay for it must come from somewhere. That money comes from the ones who are paying. The cost to those who pay will increase to cover the free good and services.

I think you need to find a good website that explains it all to you, preferably one that doesn't have a bias and presents the facts in a negative way. I'll try to find a good one that you can trust. Basically, the cost of the program requiring subsidies will ultimately be paid for by reduced costs (and waste) in other programs. You apparently don't know anything about the projections and forecasts, so I'll try to help you out but I can't get back to this until tomorrow.

 

[MaggieMae]

Please at least admit that the private sector has done NOTHING to bring down costs and become "cost efficient" on their own.

On that note, how would you design a working, cost efficient health care system where every class of citizen has affordable access? I'm not being snarky; it's a valid question, the answer to which seems nonexistent.

Would you have everyone living in the same housing? How about driving the same cars? Eating the same food? NO, HELL NO, we live in a social economic world, the Brown's live in a $500K home, drive a Mercedes and eat at all the fine restaurants they want.....

Now the Jones live in a $100K home, drive a Chevy and eat at McDonald's once a month, so based on your theory Obamacare, Universal or Single Provider) we should make the Brown's pay for what the Jones can not afford, does that sum it up?

The irony in all of this from the left is they want a perfect solution for a world they continuously point out as being flawed, all they want is perfection in an imperfect world.....

Dare I ask what is next on their agenda????

That about sum's it up. Except for the fact that the Jones along with the Browns would also be paying for the Johnsen's who live in public housing and get welfare and food stamps.

See there's where you're dead wrong. I was right that you know nothing about any of these programs, so please please please stop trying to sound like an expert. The people in public housing, etc., are ALREADY COVERED BY MEDICAID.

 

[MaggieMae]

I have, if you receive treatment you have to pay something for it. Our current system allows you to negotiate for cost, but you should pay something. Those who have NO means to make payments, the "medical system" covers such costs through "repricing". Those added uninsured costs get shifted to what everyone else will now owe. The hospital will increase their costs, using Medicare / Medicaid and private insurance to cover the loss. Doctors who used to charge $50 for a visit, for example, must now charge $80 to make up the difference for those who can not afford it. When Medicare talks about cutting back on its costs, doctors will in turn cut back on services because they are not getting paid for it. The cost of covering for the uninsured has to be paid for, otherwise they are operating under a loss.

The new Health Care law doesn't offer anything different, it's still about the shift of cost so someone else has to pay for it. This is why insurance premiums go up and Medicaid has also INCREASED in Massachusetts under THEIR government program.

Question RDD: How do you propose to control these runaway government costs, like those in Massachusetts?






The new health Care law is PROVIDING for those who can't afford insurance, by having the Federal Government pay for it. Those who refuse to provide proof they have insurance, will have to pay a fine to the Federal Government. It's another "shift of cost shell game" to cover the uninsured, that already has existed in the private sector. Again, study Massachusetts' Heath Care system, which is the "model" for the national system. Costs DIDN'T go down, and you haven't provided any facts to a government system that has.
SOURCE: Uninsured? What the New Bill Means for You - CBS Evening News - CBS News



Massachusetts has a government system and the costs DIDN'T go down. Where are your FACTS to back your statement on the effective "decrease on rates"?

There is also the issue of increased wait times ( I have previously mentioned ) for appointments in Boston: cardiology are 21 days, dermatology 54 days, obstetrics-gynecology 70 days, orthopedic surgery 40 days, and family practice 63 days. How should the Federal Government handle those issues? Any answers?

There are also two sides to the success of the Mass health care system.

Is Health Care Reform Working in Massachusetts? - DailyFinance

In that article, Blue Cross states that it has redefined its payment system to concentrate more on quality rather than quantity, one of the hallmark goals of Obamacare also.

And this, which explains cost overruns.

Mass. bashers take note: Health reform is working - The Boston Globe

If you read only negative articles, you'll come away with only a negative view.

And if you only read the feel good ones you get the same results

the answer is in the middle.

I've read the OBamacare bill, all 2100 pages of it, because I had to do an analysis of the highlights as a free-lance job recently. I know what I'm talking about.

 

[MaggieMae]

So again: Same shell game, different more expensive shells.

Well maybe you need to move to a country where people still just barter for goods and services and only the strong survive.

That seems to be working just fine here. Its called working, making money and paying your bills for goods and service's rendered.

Maybe the ones who want to live off of public funds and health care should move to canada and england.

I know! How about we just shoot them? I'm sure that's one of your closeted wishes, you being such a patriotic capitalist and all.

 

[syrenn]

How do you know it's going to cost you more? The full program won't even be implemented until 2014.

How do you know it is not going to cost more?

It is simple business. Increase the demand for goods and services and don't raise the cost to cover said goods and service's...you go bankrupt.
So why have TVs, computers, and other electronics all fallen in price dramatically, but it still costs the same to produce and sell them? COMPETITION!!!

Increase the amount of good and services that are given away for free, the money to pay for it must come from somewhere. That money comes from the ones who are paying. The cost to those who pay will increase to cover the free good and services.

I think you need to find a good website that explains it all to you, preferably one that doesn't have a bias and presents the facts in a negative way. I'll try to find a good one that you can trust. Basically, the cost of the program requiring subsidies will ultimately be paid for by reduced costs (and waste) in other programs. You apparently don't know anything about the projections and forecasts, so I'll try to help you out but I can't get back to this until tomorrow.

You still don't understand do you.

So long as exemptions are made NOT to pay into the system, it is doomed to fail. It will cost everyone more to carry the greater amount masses.

This has nothing to do with lowering health care costs by competition. It has everything to do with paying your way, no free rides.

 

[syrenn]

Well maybe you need to move to a country where people still just barter for goods and services and only the strong survive.

That seems to be working just fine here. Its called working, making money and paying your bills for goods and service's rendered.

Maybe the ones who want to live off of public funds and health care should move to canada and england.

I know! How about we just shoot them? I'm sure that's one of your closeted wishes, you being such a patriotic capitalist and all.

Not quite. I wont cry if they take it upon themselves, shoot themselves.

 

[GWV5903]

The reason there is so much opposition by people over 50 is because they have been led to believe what Republicans constantly lie about, that Medicare benefits will be cut. As I've repeatedly said, that is NOT TRUE. Medicare ADVANTAGE subsidies to insurers will be cut. People can still get coverage via Medicare Advantage plans, but they will pay a higher premium for those policies out of pocket because those insurance companies will no longer be on the government dole.

Syrenn is correct, do you believe the Medicare Advantage crowd is getting a better deal on cost? Hell no, Obamacare does not address the problem. Where is the fixed income crowd going to get the difference? This is why the truth is very easy to understand, you will push (actually shove) the ones who can't afford the difference into Medicaid, is that your idea of a solution?

No one has claimed there is some easy solution, but this sure as hell is going in the wrong direction....

We drove our company to record profits this year in the home building industry thru through and honest evaluation of cost, but I know, you believe the Feds are going to do this with our Tax Dollars.....

Of course you completely miss the point. The insurance companies that pay for the added coverage fixed income people get from the Medicare Advantage insurance is subsidized FROM the general fund of Medicare. In other words, I don't have Advantage, and my $96.00 a month premium helps pay for some other granny's hearing aids. Using Syrenn's complaint in my example, why should I pay for someone else's hearing aids? If an elderly person on a fixed income can't afford increased premiums under Advantage because they will no longer be subsidized, they will still not lose any of the benefits provided by standard Medicare coverage.

Medicare wasn't set up to fill the needs of the physical defects that begin to happen to everyone as they get older: Eyes, ears, teeth. If it had, the program would have been bankrupt in less than five years. If I want new eyeglasses, I have to pay for them myself.

Medicare does not pay for hearing aids, but Medicaid does.....

Did you miss this too?

 

[Big Fitz]

Well maybe you need to move to a country where people still just barter for goods and services and only the strong survive.

That seems to be working just fine here. Its called working, making money and paying your bills for goods and service's rendered.

Maybe the ones who want to live off of public funds and health care should move to canada and england.

I know! How about we just shoot them? I'm sure that's one of your closeted wishes, you being such a patriotic capitalist and all.

mmm nice projection. You should get together with RDD. He wants em to beg first though.

 

[Big Fitz]

I was being sarcastic, illustrating a point that calling people who don't have insurance lazy and losers is wrong because he in fact fits the description of the very people he says are mooching off the system.

The fact that he doesn't see the irony in this makes him an idiot and why I mock him. NOT because he has no money. If I didn't care about the poor I wouldn't want my tax dollars go to subsidize their health care.

You were not being sarcastic...you were being a fucking ass hole dick and using information about his life's situation against him. Pathetic.

How can someone who is PAYING for their medical care fall into the lazy loser category? He does not fit EITHER category.

He is not mooching off of any system..and yet you mock him for being to poor to afford health insurgence. The very people you say you championing.

How is his willingness to pay his bills and NOT wanting others to pay for him make him an idiot?

He does not see any irony nor do i. What i do see you is mocking him for his situation in life in such an underhanded way that it is disgusting its pathetic.

And you should be very ashamed.

Well it's not my fault you fail to see the hypocrisy in his viewpoint. Nor is it my fault that you are too ashamed to just come out and say that people who can't afford healthcare shouldn't receive it. But it's ok, I can read between the lines. Have a good weekend!

You lousy little shit.

You mean like the hypocrisy of attacking those who are being responsible even though they are poor? Having utter contempt for those you proclaim to want to help? You sit here and claim to be 'mocking ignorance' and being sarcastic when it is plain to see for everyone that you really are a hateful prick.

How about the sheer arrogance then of playing games trying to drive home a political point off of my own personal situation, you fuck. You want to score political points at my expense but when confronted with the reality of your own desired solution's abject economic failure that YOU EVEN ADMIT TO you suddenly blank out and duck the whole issue going back to attack responsible people like myself, and imply we're costing you money!

Not only that, you disregard all the factors affecting healthcare that are GOVERNMENT SPAWNED as if ignoring them will take them out of the equation. you claim to want to discuss the issue of health care but you dont' want to do it honestly. I've tossed out in multiple threads many things that would truly help the poor while REDUCING the size of government. Do you even HAVE any solutions that don't involve government growing? I doubt it.

No. Instead you want us to be 'grateful' for your magnanimous contribution to forestalling their death while hating them for needing saving. Oh you poor put upon bastard. How about instead you work to reduce the costs that make it all so difficult with out government interfering and controlling every aspect of their lives? Because in all reality, as long as your bed is feathered, you couldn't give a flying fuck.

You're scum, and thank you for illustrating it once again to the entire board.

Prick.

 

[Big Fitz]

I was being sarcastic, illustrating a point that calling people who don't have insurance lazy and losers is wrong because he in fact fits the description of the very people he says are mooching off the system.

The fact that he doesn't see the irony in this makes him an idiot and why I mock him. NOT because he has no money. If I didn't care about the poor I wouldn't want my tax dollars go to subsidize their health care.

You were not being sarcastic...you were being a fucking ass hole dick and using information about his life's situation against him. Pathetic.

How can someone who is PAYING for their medical care fall into the lazy loser category? He does not fit EITHER category.

He is not mooching off of any system..and yet you mock him for being to poor to afford health insurgence. The very people you say you championing.

How is his willingness to pay his bills and NOT wanting others to pay for him make him an idiot?

He does not see any irony nor do i. What i do see you is mocking him for his situation in life in such an underhanded way that it is disgusting its pathetic.

And you should be very ashamed.

You completely misunderstood that entire exchange. Also, I don't see you lambasting BF for his nonstop insults.

Maggie, the issue between RDD and myself has been going on for two or three threads now. At one point I used my own personal situation to illustrate how much of a problem government was in health care. RDD then seized upon that opportunity to be intellectually disingenuous, personally demeaning and an all around prick about my life. I made the mistake of putting it out there, and being the opportunistic fuck that he is, he attacked me on it.

Now, if he had been at least civil back then, I'd be treating him better now. If he was intellectually honest, we'd actually be discussing the issue more rather than playing fuckaround fuckaround games. But since he cannot discuss economic realities or real world application because he knows it destroys his philosophically pure arguments that don't work in the real world, he won't.

So until such time that RDD is either capable or willing to participate in an adult conversation and actually bring reason to the table, (not to mention a shitload of apologies for his past attacks) all he's going to get from me are counter attacks and ridicule as well.

 

[syrenn]

You were not being sarcastic...you were being a fucking ass hole dick and using information about his life's situation against him. Pathetic.

How can someone who is PAYING for their medical care fall into the lazy loser category? He does not fit EITHER category.

He is not mooching off of any system..and yet you mock him for being to poor to afford health insurgence. The very people you say you championing.

How is his willingness to pay his bills and NOT wanting others to pay for him make him an idiot?

He does not see any irony nor do i. What i do see you is mocking him for his situation in life in such an underhanded way that it is disgusting its pathetic.

And you should be very ashamed.

You completely misunderstood that entire exchange. Also, I don't see you lambasting BF for his nonstop insults.

Maggie, the issue between RDD and myself has been going on for two or three threads now. At one point I used my own personal situation to illustrate how much of a problem government was in health care. RDD then seized upon that opportunity to be intellectually disingenuous, personally demeaning and an all around prick about my life. I made the mistake of putting it out there, and being the opportunistic fuck that he is, he attacked me on it.

Now, if he had been at least civil back then, I'd be treating him better now. If he was intellectually honest, we'd actually be discussing the issue more rather than playing fuckaround fuckaround games. But since he cannot discuss economic realities or real world application because he knows it destroys his philosophically pure arguments that don't work in the real world, he won't.

So until such time that RDD is either capable or willing to participate in an adult conversation and actually bring reason to the table, (not to mention a shitload of apologies for his past attacks) all he's going to get from me are counter attacks and ridicule as well.

I tell ya, that was pretty damn low and crule of him mocking you the way he did. I was actually amazed he attacked your situation in life, considering you are the very people he claims to want to help.

 

[R.D.]

If he was intellectually honest, we'd actually be discussing the issue more rather than playing fuckaround fuckaround games. But since he cannot discuss economic realities or real world application because he knows it destroys his philosophically pure arguments that don't work in the real world, he won't.

Check and mate!

 

[Big Fitz]

You completely misunderstood that entire exchange. Also, I don't see you lambasting BF for his nonstop insults.

Maggie, the issue between RDD and myself has been going on for two or three threads now. At one point I used my own personal situation to illustrate how much of a problem government was in health care. RDD then seized upon that opportunity to be intellectually disingenuous, personally demeaning and an all around prick about my life. I made the mistake of putting it out there, and being the opportunistic fuck that he is, he attacked me on it.

Now, if he had been at least civil back then, I'd be treating him better now. If he was intellectually honest, we'd actually be discussing the issue more rather than playing fuckaround fuckaround games. But since he cannot discuss economic realities or real world application because he knows it destroys his philosophically pure arguments that don't work in the real world, he won't.

So until such time that RDD is either capable or willing to participate in an adult conversation and actually bring reason to the table, (not to mention a shitload of apologies for his past attacks) all he's going to get from me are counter attacks and ridicule as well.

I tell ya, that was pretty damn low and crule of him mocking you the way he did. I was actually amazed he attacked your situation in life, considering you are the very people he claims to want to help.

preeeeeeettty much.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

How do you know it's going to cost you more? The full program won't even be implemented until 2014.

How do you know it is not going to cost more?

It is simple business. Increase the demand for goods and services and don't raise the cost to cover said goods and service's...you go bankrupt.

So why have TVs, computers, and other electronics all fallen in price dramatically, but it still costs the same to produce and sell them? COMPETITION!!!

In case you didn't catch it Syrenn, she didn't provide you with a . . internet link . . to back her statement. The only FACTS you will find is in the form a YouTube video of Nancy Pelosi talking about "choice and competition". Which only goes to prove, hear a lie long enough and people ( like MaggieMay ) are likely to believe it.

Of course the closest government system we have is in the state of Massachusetts. There is very little doubt the state is facing a lot of higher costs to contend with, to include Medicaid, and I have included plenty of "sources" including the New York Times. Last I checked the New York Times is supported by the left for many of THEIR sources, so I don't see any "bias" there. Contrary to what Maggie and RDD would have you to believe, you simply can not ignore the increasing cost burden Massachusetts must bare. They would much rather hold their heads in the clouds, and come up with an extensive Santa Clause type of "wish list", on the kind of coverage everyone ought to have. However, you must also face the "REALITY" of what such coverage will cost. Simply putting the truth about "cost" on the shelf, and saying it's the Federal Government's problem, is simply being irresponsible. This is the true cost of what government care brings, from a state that HAS taken the initiative:

Addressing the issue regarding the INCREASE COSTS of Health Care brought onto the state
Illegals Drive Up Healthcare Costs for Taxpayers in Massachusetts
Skyrocketing Massachusetts health costs could foreshadow high price of ObamaCare | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment ( which sites the Boston Globe as it's source )

including two articles from left leaning newspapers:
ER visits, costs in Mass. climb - The Boston Globe
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/health/policy/16mass.html?_r=1

Firms cancel health coverage
With cost rising, small companies turning to state
Firms cancel health coverage - The Boston Globe

By Kay Lazar: Globe Staff / July 18, 2010

The relentlessly rising cost of health insurance is prompting some small Massachusetts companies to drop coverage for their workers and encourage them to sign up for state-subsidized care instead, a trend that, some analysts say, could eventually weigh heavily on the state’s already-stressed budget.

Since April 1, the date many insurance contracts are renewed for small businesses, the owners of about 90 small companies terminated their insurance plans with Braintree-based broker Jeff Rich and indicated in a follow-up survey that they were relying on publicly-funded insurance for their employees.

Rising Health Care Costs
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts - Massachusetts Division of Insurance 2010 Rate Review - Rising Health Care Costs

In Massachusetts Health Care Cost Trends 2010 Final Report (April 2010), the Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance and Policy wrote:

Health care costs are growing at an unsustainable rate. Cost containment efforts should focus primarily on mitigating the growth in medical expenses ... Price increases, due to both higher negotiated rates and care moving to higher cost settings, account for the majority of the growth in health care costs. (pages 2-3).
In its Investigation of Health Care Cost Trends and Cost Drivers, Preliminary Report (January 29, 2010), the Office of Attorney General Martha Coakley stated:

Data from two large health plans show that price increases are responsible for roughly three quarters of the total health care cost increases in the commercial health care marketplace over the past three to four years (page 16).
In its report to Massachusetts policymakers, Controlling Health Care Spending in Massachusetts: An Analysis of Options (August 2009), the RAND Corporation stated:

Generally, premiums are determined by three factors: expected health spending for a given group of individuals, the actuarial value of the plan, and a load factor that captures the cost of administering the plan (page 194).
In its July 2009 final report, the Massachusetts Special Commission on the Health Care Payment System wrote:

It is difficult to overstate the impact that high and fast-growing health care costs have on Massachusetts' citizens, businesses, cities, towns, and state government. Largely driven by these health cost increases, health insurance premiums have increased almost every year for the past two decades at a pace that well exceeds the annual increase in the cost of living (page 1).

Increase the amount of good and services that are given away for free, the money to pay for it must come from somewhere. That money comes from the ones who are paying. The cost to those who pay will increase to cover the free good and services.

I think you need to find a good website that explains it all to you, preferably one that doesn't have a bias and presents the facts in a negative way.
In other words "bias" articles from the left that only goes into the beautiful 'picturesque' of what Health Care looks like.

I'll try to find a good one that you can trust. Basically, the cost of the program requiring subsidies will ultimately be paid for by reduced costs (and waste) in other programs. You apparently don't know anything about the projections and forecasts, so I'll try to help you out but I can't get back to this until tomorrow.

How has Massachusetts been successful in reducing the state's Health Care costs, or are we only dealing with hypotheticals? Do you have a link for these PROVEN "reduction" in health care costs?

 

[syrenn]

How do you know it is not going to cost more?

It is simple business. Increase the demand for goods and services and don't raise the cost to cover said goods and service's...you go bankrupt.

In case you didn't catch it Syrenn, she didn't provide you with a . . internet link . . to back her statement. The only FACTS you will find is in the form a YouTube video of Nancy Pelosi talking about "choice and competition". Which only goes to prove, hear a lie long enough and people ( like MaggieMay ) are likely to believe it.

Of course the closest government system we have is in the state of Massachusetts. There is very little doubt the state is facing a lot of higher costs to contend with, to include Medicaid, and I have included plenty of "sources" including the New York Times. Last I checked the New York Times is supported by the left for many of THEIR sources, so I don't see any "bias" there. Contrary to what Maggie and RDD would have you to believe, you simply can not ignore the increasing cost burden Massachusetts must bare. They who much rather hold their heads in the clouds, and come up with an extensive Santa Clause type of "wish list", on the kind of coverage everyone ought to have. However, you must also face the "REALITY" of what such coverage will cost. Simply putting the truth about "cost" on the shelf, and saying it's the Federal Government's problem, is simply being irresponsible. This is the true cost of what government care brings, from a state that HAS taken the initiative:

Addressing the issue regarding the INCREASE COSTS of Health Care brought onto the state
Illegals Drive Up Healthcare Costs for Taxpayers in Massachusetts
Skyrocketing Massachusetts health costs could foreshadow high price of ObamaCare | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment ( which sites the Boston Globe as it's source )

including two articles from left leaning newspapers:
ER visits, costs in Mass. climb - The Boston Globe
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/health/policy/16mass.html?_r=1

Increase the amount of good and services that are given away for free, the money to pay for it must come from somewhere. That money comes from the ones who are paying. The cost to those who pay will increase to cover the free good and services.

I think you need to find a good website that explains it all to you, preferably one that doesn't have a bias and presents the facts in a negative way.
In other words "bias" articles from the left that only goes into the beautiful 'picturesque' of what Health Care looks like.

I'll try to find a good one that you can trust. Basically, the cost of the program requiring subsidies will ultimately be paid for by reduced costs (and waste) in other programs. You apparently don't know anything about the projections and forecasts, so I'll try to help you out but I can't get back to this until tomorrow.

How has Massachusetts been successful in reducing the state's Health Care costs, or are we only dealing with hypotheticals? Do you have a link for these PROVEN "reduction" in health care costs?

LOL. Do mean like nancy peolsi saying that the best stimulus is to have MORE people on welfare?

The only poof there is that any of this will work, that any of this will lower costs TO EVERYONE, is feel good hope and change.

 

[HUGGY]

I said extreme far left not liberal dems. And there is also extreme far right.
This bill will cost to much in the future just like all large government programs.

Health care already costs twice as much as it should. We already do and have been paying for emergency care for everyone that is not insured. This thread is stupid. If you want health care to be cheaper it must be taken out of the hands of the HMOs.

 

[MaggieMae]

Just an aside. Wait time for those who are not paying a dime is a non issue. Its free.

Wait time for those of us who are paying and must wait for the heard to pass through is an issue.


How many millions will be dumped into obama care that now have no health care? How many millions will that put into and already bursting system?

Just something to think about.

I think I've already mentioned that a shortage of doctors (GPs) is becoming a problem. But I also think that more and more clinics are being established in rural communities where basic preventive treatment is performed by Physicians Assistants, who can legally do just about everything an MD can except surgery, including dispensing prescription drugs. I see shortage of medical help as a temporary problem. After all, people all over the country are looking for new vocations, and medicine is a top employer.

That said, I think you're a very narcissistic and selfish person when you say insulting things like YOU (precious YOU) will have to wait for the herd to pass through. Just who the fuck made you a princess? My my my, how positively HORRIBLE it might be that YOU would have to wait in line with all the other peasants.

Sorry you dont like the real life application of obamacare.

I have no problem waiting with the "peasants" as you call them. I actually like the peasants as opposed to gentry. If the peasants expect and demand the same care i do. I expect the peasants to paying the same thing that i do.

I don't know where you got that impression from what I said. There are PARTS of Obamacare that I don't think are workable. But rejection of the entire program is not an option.

 

[syrenn]

I think I've already mentioned that a shortage of doctors (GPs) is becoming a problem. But I also think that more and more clinics are being established in rural communities where basic preventive treatment is performed by Physicians Assistants, who can legally do just about everything an MD can except surgery, including dispensing prescription drugs. I see shortage of medical help as a temporary problem. After all, people all over the country are looking for new vocations, and medicine is a top employer.

That said, I think you're a very narcissistic and selfish person when you say insulting things like YOU (precious YOU) will have to wait for the herd to pass through. Just who the fuck made you a princess? My my my, how positively HORRIBLE it might be that YOU would have to wait in line with all the other peasants.

Sorry you dont like the real life application of obamacare.

I have no problem waiting with the "peasants" as you call them. I actually like the peasants as opposed to gentry. If the peasants expect and demand the same care i do. I expect the peasants to paying the same thing that i do.

I don't know where you got that impression from what I said. There are PARTS of Obamacare that I don't think are workable. But rejection of the entire program is not an option.

There are many parts of this bill that i like as well. There are many parts that are absolutely needed. But you cant pick the parts you like and don't like. You have to take it as a whole.

So since this little thing got slammed down our throats and got stuck, its getting the Heimlich now.

The main part that is not workable is the finances. It is an unsustainable system on a much grander scale then the one we have now.

So again, nothing changes with obamacare except it will cost us more. It is the same shell game only different more expensive shells.

 

[MaggieMae]

Syrenn is correct, do you believe the Medicare Advantage crowd is getting a better deal on cost? Hell no, Obamacare does not address the problem. Where is the fixed income crowd going to get the difference? This is why the truth is very easy to understand, you will push (actually shove) the ones who can't afford the difference into Medicaid, is that your idea of a solution?

No one has claimed there is some easy solution, but this sure as hell is going in the wrong direction....

We drove our company to record profits this year in the home building industry thru through and honest evaluation of cost, but I know, you believe the Feds are going to do this with our Tax Dollars.....

Of course you completely miss the point. The insurance companies that pay for the added coverage fixed income people get from the Medicare Advantage insurance is subsidized FROM the general fund of Medicare. In other words, I don't have Advantage, and my $96.00 a month premium helps pay for some other granny's hearing aids. Using Syrenn's complaint in my example, why should I pay for someone else's hearing aids? If an elderly person on a fixed income can't afford increased premiums under Advantage because they will no longer be subsidized, they will still not lose any of the benefits provided by standard Medicare coverage.

You have it a bit wrong. I dont say "why should i pay for everyone one else"

I am saying if you want something pay for it. If you want to be in obamacare...then EVERYONE pay for into it. No exemptions. No free ride for anyone.

Medicare wasn't set up to fill the needs of the physical defects that begin to happen to everyone as they get older: Eyes, ears, teeth. If it had, the program would have been bankrupt in less than five years. If I want new eyeglasses, I have to pay for them myself.

Bingo...and obamacare will be bankrupt too. They are making provisions that they cannot pay for.

Well since you're still ignorant of what the bill actually contains, this is the best analysis (short of reading the entire bill). All you're doing is projecting based on what other opinionators are saying, and they don't know for a fact what the fiscal benefits will be either.

Obamacare Title I: Qualified Health Plans and Abortion Coverage

Or, for an expanded explanation (including the history of its passage) in lay terms, you can peruse the Wikipedia site, and if you question its veracity, click on the myriad hyperlinks therein for their sources:

Health care reform in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[syrenn]

Of course you completely miss the point. The insurance companies that pay for the added coverage fixed income people get from the Medicare Advantage insurance is subsidized FROM the general fund of Medicare. In other words, I don't have Advantage, and my $96.00 a month premium helps pay for some other granny's hearing aids. Using Syrenn's complaint in my example, why should I pay for someone else's hearing aids? If an elderly person on a fixed income can't afford increased premiums under Advantage because they will no longer be subsidized, they will still not lose any of the benefits provided by standard Medicare coverage.

You have it a bit wrong. I dont say "why should i pay for everyone one else"

I am saying if you want something pay for it. If you want to be in obamacare...then EVERYONE pay for into it. No exemptions. No free ride for anyone.

Medicare wasn't set up to fill the needs of the physical defects that begin to happen to everyone as they get older: Eyes, ears, teeth. If it had, the program would have been bankrupt in less than five years. If I want new eyeglasses, I have to pay for them myself.

Bingo...and obamacare will be bankrupt too. They are making provisions that they cannot pay for.

Well since you're still ignorant of what the bill actually contains, this is the best analysis (short of reading the entire bill). All you're doing is projecting based on what other opinionators are saying, and they don't know for a fact what the fiscal benefits will be either.

Obamacare Title I: Qualified Health Plans and Abortion Coverage

Or, for an expanded explanation (including the history of its passage) in lay terms, you can peruse the Wikipedia site, and if you question its veracity, click on the myriad hyperlinks therein for their sources:

Health care reform in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Affordable health care implies that EVERYONE pays for it.

Again. So long as there are exemptions...some that do not pay into the system, it is the SAME thing we have now. It is the same shell game just different more expensive shell.